These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Citadel timers - is three strictly neccesary?

Author
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#1 - 2017-06-10 20:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Example:

The Blood Raider shipyard Sotiyo. It has a shield reinforce timer which for *fluff* reasons (not connected to Upwell network etc etc) is the only one. Conceptually then, it's quite a nice and 'clean' mechanic in that sense - once you've discovered the thing you hit the shield, it gets reinforced and generates a timer (we like timers, timers are good, timers be content generators). Everyone comes back later to try to finish it off, or from the other perspective, try to blow the attackers to bits while resolutely avoiding the use of webbing mechanics (Big smile).

So, my question is, with the ever increasing spam of the new structures in all areas of space, does it really work/make sense for player-owned versions to have three states covering 7 days, compared to one 41 hour, 40 minute timer for the Starbases they replace?

Combined with the limited vulnerability windows and built-in asset safety, it seems excessive. Should the new structures only have a shield reinforcement akin to the Blood Raider version? Should 'invulnerability' periods be dependent on some periodic, active maintenance by the owner, which, if you **** up for some reason (or, insert "Spai!"), leaves it open for attack at any point?

Discuss.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-06-10 21:36:09 UTC
It requires more information that I have access to, both server stuff, and player tendencies.

I do think it's probably a pretty fine line. If it didn't take a week to take down a Citadel, we all know very well that some groups might take it into their heads to purge entire regions of all Citadels.

I think it might possibly be weighted a bit towards defense, but EVE players can be pretty destructive. So the current numbers probably a good thing if you want Citadels to be mostly useful. And CCP doesn't want the player structure system to be pointless, so that's probably what they have to do.



...MAYBE- how about this, structure timers are shared per system? The more structures per system, the less reinforcement time, somehow? Nothing spectacular, but maybe something on the order of every 5 Citadels in a system takes down the total time by a day?

Give people a reason to spread them around. I haven't seen too many systems with large Citadel numbers, though.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#3 - 2017-06-10 22:10:00 UTC
So if I build citadels in my enemies system, I can tear down their citadel faster then just pack up my own?
Alternatively if it's per alliance I just use holding corps to spread them around.

Either way that sort of shared timer is abusable.
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
#4 - 2017-06-15 10:14:22 UTC
we do need a reason to kill citadels, what's the total reinforce timers, like 9-10 days? that's a wee bit to long esp when you hit hull and that 6 day timer kicks in.

"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith

Aeryn Maricadie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2017-06-15 10:35:29 UTC
They need to be like POS' s were, one timer, a little over a day. And no asset safety, when it gets reinforced you lose access to some of your stuff and when it pops it drops. The current economic problems are being caused by a lack of fighting. The lack of fighting is being caused by the difficulty of attacking people's ****. Instead they want to nerd ships and they are going to keep hitting the ratting flavor of the month with the nerf bat until they results. Which they won't because the ships aren't the problem.

The damage caps are fine, as long as they are reasonable. An hour to reinforce and two to finish is good in my opinion. Also extending timers for the big important citadel isn't bad either but should still be one reinforcement and not so long.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#6 - 2017-06-15 12:58:37 UTC
Citadels aren't merely POS replacements, they are also replacements for 100% indestructible stations. So, how do you encourage rational human beings to move, with their assets, from an indestructible station to a destructible Citadel? You make them feel safe. Their assets are protected by asset safety and the structures are difficult to kill with little reward - not something you're likely to do for LOLs, there needs to be a strategic objective to make it worthwhile.

That's not to say CCP won't change the rules in the future - they've been known to do that. For now, take the "glass half full" viewpoint - they generate a lot more content than NPC stations!
Aeryn Maricadie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-06-15 13:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Aeryn Maricadie
Do Little wrote:
Citadels aren't merely POS replacements, they are also replacements for 100% indestructible stations. So, how do you encourage rational human beings to move, with their assets, from an indestructible station to a destructible Citadel? You make them feel safe. Their assets are protected by asset safety and the structures are difficult to kill with little reward - not something you're likely to do for LOLs, there needs to be a strategic objective to make it worthwhile.

That's not to say CCP won't change the rules in the future - they've been known to do that. For now, take the "glass half full" viewpoint - they generate a lot more content than NPC stations!


1- Citadels are not meant to replace NPC stations, they are meant to replace the conquerable outposts.

2- People already do move all their **** into 100% destructible things, they did it with POS's, and they still do it with Citadels in J-Space, which poop the assets into a loot-able can when they pop. Just as BOB intended.

3- there is nothing strategic about destroying a structure that can be dropped anywhere, gives you nothing for doing it, and can be replaced far easier than the assets that must be risked to destroy it. This is why people avoid the hell out of it and just farm their own space.

4- This is EVE. This game is based on the concept that a player can lose everything in an instant, this idea makes what people build that much more precious. This is what sets it apart from other MMO's. Or rather I should say has. Lately their changes have all been about mitigating risk and loss. This has led us to this point where factions that once fought legendary battles just don't give a **** anymore. The largest Alliance in the game, the alliance that won BR5B has taken to harassing Hi Sec miners for the lolz. How sad is that?
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2017-06-15 17:53:52 UTC
Change the vulnerability window.

Let players initiate an attack on your shield timer whenever they want. Also, triple the damage cap on shields - you will have plenty of opportunities to respond to them if you cannot drop what you are doing to respond to them now.

When they hit the armor timer, they see when they get to come back for the second fight, because the armor timer (now an armor vulnerability window timer) is set by the holding corp.

This way the defenders can still set the timer for a period that they know they'll be on for, and the attackers don't have to wait for a window just to start the ball rolling.
Claevyan
The Suicide Express
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#9 - 2017-06-15 18:24:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Claevyan
Here's a scenario that i see coming down the line when someone finally does decide to knock over someone else's systems and citadels.

I can anchor N+1 Citadels in system X for as long as I have the isk to buy them, and the time to drop them. When someone comes and RF's the shields on all of my citadels, I can anchor another one... and another one... and keep anchoring more. Instead of TZ tanking, I can just Boredom tank these bastards to death and eventually one of us is going to quit trying. With the isk available to the largest alliances in the game, you can skirmish but you cannot war. Any attempt to remove them from specific regions is now rendered, for all intents and purposes, impossible due to the sheer amount of time it takes to remove just 1 Astrahus from an area.

Citadel mechanics in Wormhole space seem to make the most sense, 3 timers, 24 hours each timer, no asset safety, and even then it can be cancerous to remove them. Plus its about 10x harder to "Boredom" tank with citadels in a wormhole system as opposed to a single Null sec system due to hole control and mass restrictions in J-Space.

While i can understand and even agree with CCP on needing a means of making players feel like their assets are relatively safe, the fact that a citadel can be destroyed at all adds a level of risk to using them that i think is a GOOD thing for eve over all. There always needs to be risk.

But at the moment the sheer volume and ease of proliferation for Citadels, combined with the terribly boring, drawn out, and cancerous experience of removing citadels has actually caused people to feel LESS inclined to go to war, not more so.

A good balance might be to limit what a single player organization can anchor based on size and economic control of an area. Every corp or alliance gets X amount to start with, and if you have beyond Y member count you get more to a set maximum of (enter value here).

Yes, it can be exploited via alt groups and alt corps, but there is still a relatively finite number in place even then... as opposed to an UNLIMITED amount for EVERY player in the game.

Vote for Claevyan, CSM 13: Low Class Wormholes, Alliance Bookmarks WHEN?!, and CCPlz candidate.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#10 - 2017-06-15 18:57:52 UTC
I really like the idea I saw about giving all structures a baseline fuel consumption requirement.

The suggestion was, they all consume a minimum amount of fuel (say, 10/20/40 per hour for m/l/xl). If unfueled, they lose tethering/timers/whatever.

The baseline fuel would be shared, up to that minimum amount, with installed services, so it wouldn't actually add to the cost of a structure that's actively being utilized for those - only an otherwise idle structure.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Aeryn Maricadie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-06-16 12:27:14 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
I really like the idea I saw about giving all structures a baseline fuel consumption requirement.

The suggestion was, they all consume a minimum amount of fuel (say, 10/20/40 per hour for m/l/xl). If unfueled, they lose tethering/timers/whatever.

The baseline fuel would be shared, up to that minimum amount, with installed services, so it wouldn't actually add to the cost of a structure that's actively being utilized for those - only an otherwise idle structure.


Yeah this is the best way to limit proliferation. They need to have fuel requirements like the old POS's. Not to mention that removing the need for fuel took away a major commodity sink. Everyone that used to produce POS fuel now produces something else. They could also add an upkeep fee to make an ISK sink as well. I mean someone has to scrub the toilets in those things.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2017-06-16 13:25:49 UTC
The idea behind it was that it would discourage people just randomly going around bashing them like with pos. So you were only going to kill one of you really had a reason. This lets them be safe enough to be placed in space publicly and used over stations
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2017-06-16 13:28:44 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
I really like the idea I saw about giving all structures a baseline fuel consumption requirement.

The suggestion was, they all consume a minimum amount of fuel (say, 10/20/40 per hour for m/l/xl). If unfueled, they lose tethering/timers/whatever.

The baseline fuel would be shared, up to that minimum amount, with installed services, so it wouldn't actually add to the cost of a structure that's actively being utilized for those - only an otherwise idle structure.



except fuel was reined for a good reason and proliferation is only a problem in wh space. In k- space any abandoned citadel can be ignored.

If we really wanted to limit it then do it via a weekly bill this way of they are tied to dead corps/ alliances eventually they will shut down but no one has to be a fuel monkey for currently unused citadel.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2017-06-16 14:54:19 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
The idea behind it was that it would discourage people just randomly going around bashing them like with pos. So you were only going to kill one of you really had a reason. This lets them be safe enough to be placed in space publicly and used over stations


If you should only be killing them for strategic reasons, you should only be deploying them for strategic reasons.

Spamming 50 of them "because we can" is horrible gameplay, because if you DO ever want to forcefully evict someone, that is a hellish amount of structure bashing to do.

Forcing some kind of maintenance would most certainly limit them to strategic deployments, given the massive increase in logistical overhead needed to maintain a bunch of otherwise abandoned citadels.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2017-06-16 20:16:26 UTC
Agondray wrote:
we do need a reason to kill citadels, what's the total reinforce timers, like 9-10 days? that's a wee bit to long esp when you hit hull and that 6 day timer kicks in.


Bump the price of asset safety a bit and give the extra to the entities who were on the KM based on damage done or something like that. This does not fix the timers but make it at least somewhat worthwhile to shoot it beyond a KM.

It actually might not be a good idea as I am not sure how it would affect the usage.

As for the timers, they could probably stand to lose one.

Do something about the damn void bomb. It literally kills most imaginable doctrine that could try to fight on grid beside passive armor Mach.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#16 - 2017-06-16 21:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Bump the price of asset safety a bit and give the extra to the entities who were on the KM based on damage done or something like that. This does not fix the timers but make it at least somewhat worthwhile to shoot it beyond a KM.

It actually might not be a good idea as I am not sure how it would affect the usage.

As for the timers, they could probably stand to lose one.

Do something about the damn void bomb. It literally kills most imaginable doctrine that could try to fight on grid beside passive armor Mach.

Once it reaches a threshold of profit the larger entities will just run around and kill all the small entities. So handing out extra cash is bad. The ratio of salvage from a citadel could possibly be increased, my understanding atm is it works out to maybe 10-20% of the initial value in salvage? Asset safety could be bumped still of course, just don't give it to the attackers. Removing the free asset safety for a Citadel/Station in the same system and instead making it a smaller percentage but still existing would be a good start to making losing a Citadel matter far more.
Total asset value in a station with estimates of asset safety fees could also go onto KM's which would give a bit more tears incentive for people to shoot them without it being actual isk value. And we know people will go to lengths to inflict tears.

Citadels also need the third timer. There are only 2 reinforce timers. The third timer is just the time of the first attack. And for Citadels to fill their role of the safer fortress, they need to be harder to attack than the other structures. And an extra timer is the best way to do that as it gives a second chance to form a good enough defence fleet.

Especially when some areas of space don't get that damn void bomb, and the citadel defences without those bombs end up stupidly weak relatively.
Note, I'm not against the bomb getting reduced, but Citadels in the higher sec areas actually need their defence buffed, not nerfed. If Null/WH Citadels are too good then the issue is their Null/WH only modules. Not the base Citadel.
Lienzo
Amanuensis
#17 - 2017-06-17 01:46:44 UTC
It might be interesting if the owners were allowed to choose between different alternatives. e.g., exchange damage cap for number of timers, or duration between timers.